These judgements are uploaded by our esteemed readers. If you have a judgement on an important topic that you would like to share with others, please use this form to upload it
NITIN NEMA VS ITO WARD 1(1) JABALPUR & ORS (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
M P HIGH COURT JABALPUR BENCH: The grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner in support of challenge to the impugned order and notice are as follows: (a) The income referred to in impugned order and notice Annexure P-3 and P-4 is not income chargeable to tax but is the gross proceeds/consideration received by petitioner for sale of 16 scooters during… Read More ...
Ramachandra Kanu Mendadkar v. CIT(A) (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 69A : Unexplained money-Advocate-Seizure of cash-Cash withdrawal from Bank-Professional fees received cash-Name of the client from whom cash received was disclosed-The cash amount was disclosed in the books of account-Revenue cannot ask the asseessee to prove the source of the source-Addition was deleted. [S. 44AB , 131(IA)] The assessee is a practicing advocate who… Read More ...
ACIT v Ramlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : Section 68 : Cash credit – Jeweller-Demonetisation – allegation of inflated cash sales and huge cash deposit not commensurate with earlier year and subsequent year and customers did not substantiate their source of funds – held that such allegation cannot be the ground to make addition u/s 68 if sales are linked with the deposits… Read More ...
Uttrakhand Poorv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Dehradun)
ITAT, Dehradun Bench: Facts of the case Assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 belatedly under section 139(4) of Income-tax Act, 1961 on 06.10.2015. This return was not selected for scrutiny by Assessing Officer. However, Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 on 22.01.2015 itself which is prior to the date of filing of… Read More ...
JM Financial Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 45 : Capital gains-Sale of shares held as investment–Indexed cost of acquisition-Cannot be assessed as business income–Issue of bonus shares is held to be justified – Sale of shares at cost-Short term capital loss allowable to be set off against long term capital gains-Transaction cannot be held to be colourable device to set off… Read More ...
Jindal Exports and Imports Private Limited vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
High Court of Delhi: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi quashed and set aside the notice issued under section 148A(b) and order passed under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that notice under section 148A(b) violates the provisions of section 282A as the name and designation of the concerned officer issuing the said notice finds no… Read More ...
Parth Developers vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT INDORE)
ITAT INDORE: Project Completion Method vs. Percentage Completion Method Scope of limited Scrutiny KEY Observations: Observations of the Hon. ITAT 1. The order of the AO was held as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that the AO has not examined applicability of the Percentage Completion Method. 2. It… Read More ...
Heart Foundation of India v. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 12AB : Procedure for fresh registration-Cancellation of registration-Withdrawal of registration cannot be done retrospectively Commissioner Central has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration–Cancellation of registration was quashed-Alternative contentions became academic hence not dealt with. [S. 11, 12A, 12AB(4), 13] The asseessee is a Charitable Trust which was set up vide trust deed dated April… Read More ...
Mrs. Usha Eswar v. ITO (Bombay High Court)
High Court of Bombay: Facts of the case In order to ensure finality and certainty as to taxability of income by way of dividends, interest and capital gains that Petitioner earned from sources in India, he made an application to Authority for Advance Ruling. AAR by applying provisions of India-UAE DTAA held that Petitioner was resident of UAE, Petitioner… Read More ...
PCIT v. Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
High Court of Delhi: Facts of the case Assessing Officer had levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of disallowance under section 43B. Assessee had filed original return of income on 30.11.2014 for A.Y. 2014-15. The original return of income was revised by the assessee on 01.09.2016. The revision in return of income… Read More ...